Comments
-
JKI’m disappointed that real vision is supporting this climate change denying esoteric bullshit. Lol this reads like an Allan watts transcript.
-
PMThanks RV, loved it.
-
KMFor those interested - US Drought Map updated every Thursday. I've watched this for many years and this is about the most extensive I've seen it - and it is spreading. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu
-
RCGreat piece with well-supported hypotheses. Not the first time I hear about this. It is a daunting scenario particularly for a guy like me that hates cold temperatures. It would be great to know Shawn's point of view regarding the best way to play this theme: commodities futures, producers, ag tech companies.
-
OAThanks for sharing this! Would be interesting to complement it with an interview on RV
-
BLIf Shawn's thesis plays out, it will be music to the ears of farmers in Australia. After years of horrendous droughts, they will be looking a bumper crops combined with higher prices. Already, the 2020 East Australian winter crops are looking best in many years with a La Nina forecast by Australia's BOM. In any event, we will know fairly shortly if the technical analysis presented here is worth considering.
-
dg"Attempts have been made to explain 20th century global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variation associated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, because they require unacceptably great solar forcing and are incompatible with the paleoclimatic records" -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Jan 2003. Overall, Hackett seems to lack the mathematical rigor needed to prove any of his hypotheses. Some planetary motions (venus, jupiter) are well accepted to have a degree of correlation with global temperature. Yet Hackett proposes other planetary motions (uranus, neptune) to be correlated with global temperature, this correlation is entirely unknown to science, or directly disproven. Does Hackett suggest he has proven correlations new to science? If so where is the math to prove it ? I suggest he has instead simply cherry-picked ideas from old scientific news, since disproven, and lacks the rigor to understand how to prove or disprove anything at all. What are his sources? Where is his math?
-
JRWow. Never seen anything like this. Looks like I have some more reading to do
-
SSFascinating. Thank you.
-
BHThis report is really eye-opening, even for me who has dedicated a relatively long time in physics. Would anyone share some scientific papers that provide evidence for this argument?
-
RMShawn, could you please clarify the following. On page seven you say "4-Years later an epic drought occurred in the US in 1845. Please see the news article on the next page." But the article on page eight ends with "... this year of our Lord 1908 has not been so bad after all."
-
JWReally interesting.
-
HCI can not believe that RV went ahead and put this report out. So many claims made with no proof.
-
SPAs a practising scientist, I follow a simple rule of thumb: If you are publishing something as a piece of scientific literature, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not publishing something a piece of scientific literature but you want to at least claim that your assertions are backed by scientific literature, then cite peer-reviewed journal articles. If you do neither of the following, I will accept that this is all simply your opinion, which are you are more than entitled to; but nothing more. You may make money on your investing thesis, and I hope you do; all the best of luck to you. But winning money by betting on red at the roulette table because my tarot cards told me to, still doesn't prove that tarot cards have any scientific validity.
-
JJShawn your report was fascinating, I really enjoyed reading it, it has given me so much to think about, consider and research. Thanks for the work I look forward to anything you share here at RV in the future!